England vs Italy

First topic message reminder :

28 players that have been kept.

Forwards (16): Jack Clifford (Harlequins), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Charlie Ewels (Bath), Jamie George (Saracens), Teimana Harrison (Northampton Saints), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Nathan Hughes (Wasps), Maro Itoje (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins), Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Mike Williams (Leicester Tigers), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)

Backs (12): Mike Brown (Harlequins), Danny Care (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Bath), Jonathan Joseph (Bath), Jonny May (Gloucester), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors), Anthony Watson (Bath), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Italy have scored at least one try in nearly even England v Italy game in the history of this fixture. I can see them scoring at least 10 points. They have never been nilled by England.

munkian wrote:

Cyril wrote:You've got to love the way that Ireland losing to Scotland and beating Italy is somehow more impressive than England beating France and Wales.

Whose said that ?

Rory Best.

I think you secretly love Rory Best Cyril.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Italy will be sh*tting themselves. They got truly pumped by Ireland at home. Even the highs of beating SA in the Autumn disappeared after the Wales game.

I honestly think Italy will struggle to score 6 points.

Italy will score atleast 6 points due to England's indisapline. some one on the England side will give away a penalty or 2 with in kicking range.

I do expect England to come out with a big score. But i also think Italy wil put up a bit of a fight. They all ways do in the first half.l

Isn't kicking range for Italy about 10m? It's one of their biggest issues

I think we will win, easily, with a TBP. Could win by loads, would be nice but not expecting it.

Could be tough, we have struggled against them before and didn't play that well in the first 2 matches. But we won't lose.

And I think it's likely that Jones will ensure we play a LOT better than in the last 2 matches

I think we will get the BP and win well but part of me wants Italy to turn up and give us a game. Just a couple of tries to make it interesting and set them up well for France and Scotland.

I think there is a little arrogance growing here - as if England can't lose.

They can indeed lose.... if they don't turn up for the game.


...................................... or in other words, don't let them choose a Scottish bus driver.  No Scottish bus driver and it's a cricket score for England.... in the first half.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I think you secretly love Rory Best Cyril.

It's no secret  After Hartley, George and Guirado he's the best hooker in the NH.

Hartley isn't better than George. Most fans know this.

Neither are you Glawd.

Difference is its funny to keep winding Beshocked up about George. Even Eddie Jones thinks it's LOLZ

Haywood is above Hartley for Saints so should also be above Best.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Italy have scored at least one try in nearly even England v Italy game in the history of this fixture.  I can see them scoring at least 10 points. They have never been nilled by England.

I was quite surprised by this but yes ... theyve scored a try in the last 8 games theyve played at Twickenham, and 3 in the most recent.
They only lost by 7 points in 2013.

Now of course this is in theory a much better England (despite them only playing well for short periods in the two games so far) , and its the weakest Italian side for over a decade (well the weakest Italian side not having Bergomasco as scrum half). So a big win is expected, but England have conceeded tries in every game since France last year. On the whole since the last 6 nations they have been pretty pourus in defence conceeding about 2 and a half tries a game on average.

That said they did restrict Italy to kicks in Rome and hammer them pretty substantialy, and this is the worst side theyve faced for some time. At home.

It will probably be a 30-50 point win depending on how keen England are to rack up scores. I think if Italy are in the mood they also have the potential to make things a little tougher for England though.

Parisse to get sent off in the 1st half then ends up eating a pie in the stands. 12/1

Gooseberry wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Italy have scored at least one try in nearly even England v Italy game in the history of this fixture.  I can see them scoring at least 10 points. They have never been nilled by England.

I was quite surprised by this but yes ... theyve scored a try in the last 8 games theyve played at Twickenham, and 3 in the most recent.  
They only lost by 7 points in 2013.

Now of course this is in theory a much better England (despite them only playing well for short periods in the two games so far) , and its the weakest Italian side for over a decade (well the weakest Italian side not having Bergomasco as scrum half). So a big win is expected, but England have conceded tries in every game since France last year. On the whole since the last 6 nations they have been pretty pourus in defence conceding about 2 and a half tries a game on average.

That said they did restrict Italy to kicks in Rome and hammer them pretty substantially, and this is the worst side they've faced for some time. At home.

 

That 2 and a half tries stat is pretty meaningless though, especially in the context of this fixture. England have only conceded an average of 1 try a game whilst Italy are pushing the overall average right up!

I think Italy will get a few points because they have a decent scrum, and at some point I think the game is likely to open up so Italy will get chances.

Also, someone could get sent off (it's easy enough to do these days!) and then it's a totally different game.

I am worried that England might go into this game overconfident. Talking about beating Italy by 30-50 points could lead to complacency.

England haven't exactly been putting in stellar performances so far. Only beat France by 3 points. Got past Wales by 5. Not dominating.

Don't like all the talk about trying to win the match in the last 20. Need to play for the full 80.

Starting strong puts pressure on the opposition.

beshocked wrote:Starting strong puts pressure on the opposition.

True. Perhaps we should start with George at hooker.

George who?

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Starting strong puts pressure on the opposition.

True. Perhaps we should start with George at hooker.

Haskell should start too.

cascough wrote:George who?

Ford

Gooseberry wrote:

cascough wrote:George who?

Ford

You must be getting mixed up with Ross, he plays for Scotland. Has George Chuter come out of retirement perhaps? Always liked him.

To add some context to the above analysis on first 60 vs last 20 (as I feel it might have been misinterpreted elsewhere):

England have been leading with 20 minutes to go on 12 of the 15 (80%) of matches under Eddie Jones. It certainly isn't a case of the bench repeatedly bailing England out, as they've only had to overturn 3 leads and they've never been over a score behind.

England's overall points difference is 201. They do have proportionally a better points difference in the last 20 than in the first 60, but they have an average points difference of 8.4 in the first 60 and 5 in the last 20, so the starters are getting them into good positions on average.

I'd also note that the points difference in the last 20 is not a relection on the absolute strength of England's bench in contrast to the starting team, it is a reflection on the relative strength of England's bench to the opposition in contrast to the relative strength of England's starting team to the opposition. I.e. England's bench players are better than opposition bench players to a greater degree that England's starting players are better than opposition starting players. To deduce from this analysis player X, Y or Z should start would be a leap from the conclusions you can draw from this data.

beshocked wrote:I am worried that England might go into this game overconfident. Talking about beating Italy by 30-50 points could lead to complacency.

England haven't exactly been putting in stellar performances so far. Only beat France by 3 points. Got past Wales by 5. Not dominating.

Don't like all the talk about trying to win the match in the last 20. Need to play for the full 80.

Starting strong puts pressure on the opposition.

It's hardly surprising that a team playing full strength top tier opposition without a single first choice back row player hasn't been dominant, especially given a policy of clearing out rather than contesting the ball. What's interesting for me is if you look at what's gone well and badly.

What's gone well
- Defence. England's defence has looked much less porous than it has for a while. Excluding games against Italy, they've conceded the fewest points per game, which is particularly impressive given they've endured long periods without the ball
- Discipline. Not giving much away in free ground or free points
- General attacking play. When England have had the ball, they've mostly been able to make ground
- Setpiece. Has held up well against some big threats and even won a couple of crucial turnovers. Given that Kruis is missing, that's a good show.
- Closing games. Not just scoring when they need to score, but snuffing out the possibility of a counter. Sinckler's turnover to end the game in Cardiff was a cracking example.

What's gone badly
- Hanging on to the ball. Too many handling errors
- Being stripped of the ball. Both France and Wales tried the "first tackler low, second tackler strips the ball" approach and it worked. England need to work out how to protect the ball in the new contact situation
- Not stripping the ball. Conversely, England's defensive system could have produced turnovers in the same way. It didn't. Probably a symptom of having an unfamiliar back row.

You can pretty much guarantee that Ireland will be well prepared on those last two. England need to find an answer or they will have a hard afternoon in Dublin.

Poorfour wrote:

beshocked wrote:I am worried that England might go into this game overconfident. Talking about beating Italy by 30-50 points could lead to complacency.

England haven't exactly been putting in stellar performances so far. Only beat France by 3 points. Got past Wales by 5. Not dominating.

Don't like all the talk about trying to win the match in the last 20. Need to play for the full 80.

Starting strong puts pressure on the opposition.

It's hardly surprising that a team playing full strength top tier opposition without a single first choice back row player hasn't been dominant, especially given a policy of clearing out rather than contesting the ball. What's interesting for me is if you look at what's gone well and badly.

What's gone well
- Defence. England's defence has looked much less porous than it has for a while. Excluding games against Italy, they've conceded the fewest points per game, which is particularly impressive given they've endured long periods without the ball
- Discipline. Not giving much away in free ground or free points
- General attacking play. When England have had the ball, they've mostly been able to make ground
- Setpiece. Has held up well against some big threats and even won a couple of crucial turnovers. Given that Kruis is missing, that's a good show.
- Closing games. Not just scoring when they need to score, but snuffing out the possibility of a counter. Sinckler's turnover to end the game in Cardiff was a cracking example.

What's gone badly
- Hanging on to the ball. Too many handling errors
- Being stripped of the ball. Both France and Wales tried the "first tackler low, second tackler strips the ball" approach and it worked. England need to work out how to protect the ball in the new contact situation
- Not stripping the ball. Conversely, England's defensive system could have produced turnovers in the same way. It didn't. Probably a symptom of having an unfamiliar back row.

You can pretty much guarantee that Ireland will be well prepared on those last two. England need to find an answer or they will have a hard afternoon in Dublin.

Probably worth remembering that  England dominated the first 20 minutes of the game against Wales.

Ideally they should have bough Jamie George on at 20 minutes

Does Maro Itoje wear Jamie George pajamas?

That man don't wear zilch in bed...stop denigrating him!

robbo277 wrote:To add some context to the above analysis on first 60 vs last 20 (as I feel it might have been misinterpreted elsewhere):

England have been leading with 20 minutes to go on 12 of the 15 (80%) of matches under Eddie Jones. It certainly isn't a case of the bench repeatedly bailing England out, as they've only had to overturn 3 leads and they've never been over a score behind.

England's overall points difference is 201. They do have proportionally a better points difference in the last 20 than in the first 60, but they have an average points difference of 8.4 in the first 60 and 5 in the last 20, so the starters are getting them into good positions on average.

I'd also note that the points difference in the last 20 is not a relection on the absolute strength of England's bench in contrast to the starting team, it is a reflection on the relative strength of England's bench to the opposition in contrast to the relative strength of England's starting team to the opposition. I.e. England's bench players are better than opposition bench players to a greater degree that England's starting players are better than opposition starting players. To deduce from this analysis player X, Y or Z should start would be a leap from the conclusions you can draw from this data.

Robbo, mate, this is genuinely fascinating.

cascough wrote:

robbo277 wrote:To add some context to the above analysis on first 60 vs last 20 (as I feel it might have been misinterpreted elsewhere):

England have been leading with 20 minutes to go on 12 of the 15 (80%) of matches under Eddie Jones. It certainly isn't a case of the bench repeatedly bailing England out, as they've only had to overturn 3 leads and they've never been over a score behind.

England's overall points difference is 201. They do have proportionally a better points difference in the last 20 than in the first 60, but they have an average points difference of 8.4 in the first 60 and 5 in the last 20, so the starters are getting them into good positions on average.

I'd also note that the points difference in the last 20 is not a relection on the absolute strength of England's bench in contrast to the starting team, it is a reflection on the relative strength of England's bench to the opposition in contrast to the relative strength of England's starting team to the opposition. I.e. England's bench players are better than opposition bench players to a greater degree that England's starting players are better than opposition starting players. To deduce from this analysis player X, Y or Z should start would be a leap from the conclusions you can draw from this data.

Robbo, mate, this is genuinely fascinating.

I did a lot of maths at school, and then an economics degree. Not often described as fascinating though!

SecretFly wrote:That man don't wear zilch in bed...stop denigrating him!

Quite righ too, Inverdale needs every opportunity to admire his monster tackle

Yeah so anyway if you do the maths it looks quite likely that England will win the six nations again even if they lose to Ireland. Chances are England will get winning BPs v Italy and Scotland and at the very least a losing BP v Ireland.

Will we just call it a draw now and start the Lions tour earlier?

Did you put your bet on, Guns?

As I recall you weren't backing England.

cascough wrote:Did you put your bet on, Guns?

As I recall you weren't backing England.

What bet?

SecretFly wrote:That man don't wear zilch in bed...stop denigrating him!

I am quite disturbed as to how you know this. Wouldn't want Itoje talking in his sleep and leaking lineout calls to the Irish.

All hedging and caveats aside, if England start well and stick a couple of early tries on the Italians, then the scoreboard operator/PA announcer is going to be on overtime next Sunday. You'll probably be thinking about declaring after seventy minutes.

The only chance I see of an interesting match is if England do what they did against Italy in 2013 - start slowly, fail to take chances and ultimately play so badly that they were relieved to get a win of any description. That result opened the door for Wales to be able to bury England and take the title on points difference in the final match and from an Irish standpoint, I can dream about something similar this year. I fear, however, that this really is wishful thinking. Much more likely is four tries by half-time and then a turkey-shoot in the second 40. Italy are in a bad place just now and I fear the worst.

robbo277 wrote:To add some context to the above analysis on first 60 vs last 20 (as I feel it might have been misinterpreted elsewhere):

England have been leading with 20 minutes to go on 12 of the 15 (80%) of matches under Eddie Jones. It certainly isn't a case of the bench repeatedly bailing England out, as they've only had to overturn 3 leads and they've never been over a score behind.

England's overall points difference is 201. They do have proportionally a better points difference in the last 20 than in the first 60, but they have an average points difference of 8.4 in the first 60 and 5 in the last 20, so the starters are getting them into good positions on average.

I'd also note that the points difference in the last 20 is not a relection on the absolute strength of England's bench in contrast to the starting team, it is a reflection on the relative strength of England's bench to the opposition in contrast to the relative strength of England's starting team to the opposition. I.e. England's bench players are better than opposition bench players to a greater degree that England's starting players are better than opposition starting players. To deduce from this analysis player X, Y or Z should start would be a leap from the conclusions you can draw from this data.

Ooo correlation does not causation make. I love that

Remaining 24 players.

Forwards (13)

Jack Clifford (Harlequins), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Jamie George (Saracens), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Nathan Hughes (Wasps), Maro Itoje (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins), Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)

Backs (11)

Mike Brown (Harlequins), Danny Care (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Bath Rugby), Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors), Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers).

Didn't see him dropping Joseph. If Te'o gets a run as expected Daly to 13 and Slade on bench?

Is Joseph injured? Never thought that would come.

Will be interesting to see which other player gets the elbow.

Wonder if slade will play a part.

1.Marler 2.George 3.Cole 4.Launchbury 5.Itoje 6.Clifford 7.Haskell 8.Hughes
9.Care 10.Farrell 11.Nowell 12.Te'o 13.Daly 14.Watson 15.Brown

16.Hartley 17.Mako 18.Sinckler 19.Lawes 20.Wood 21.Youngs 22.Ford 23.Slade

I'd love to see that.

- Allows someone other than Farrell and Joseph to take the responsibility of leading the defensive line out wide but still keeps Farrell in the side for experience.

- Gives a chance to see if Itoje is ready to call the line-out. He would have his club team mate in George throwing to him. If the line-out goes south then there is the Saints axis of Hartley-Lawes-Wood on the bench.

- I think Clifford is talented enough to warrant another start. Especially in what should be a more open game.

- If Watson is in the 23 then he should start. If he isn't fit enough to play more than 20-30 minutes from the bench then he should be starting for Bath.

I don't think we will see that and I won't be too bothered by selection from that 24 to be honest. It's a well chosen 24 man squad with plenty of options.

Surely Joseph is just given a weekend off to play for Bath as Jones looks at a few combinations against a 'weaker' side.

Its about Options for Jones. Hopefully it won't backfire.

But the rumours are

10 Farrell
12 Teo
13 Daly

And Joseph back at Bath pretty much confirms it.

Joseph started the season as one of the few consensus selections for the Lions. You'd think now he needs to be in the last two Six Nations games -and also show well in both - or could miss out.

Rugby Fan wrote:Joseph started the season as one of the few consensus selections for the Lions. You'd think now he needs to be in the last two Six Nations games -and also show well in both - or could miss out.

The absence of consistent centres in the home nations should help him. Plus the inexperience of Jones, Ringrose and Daly as other options at 13.

With the lack of centres it seems expected by a few pundits and bookmakers that Farrell will travel as a centre rather than fly half to allow the quality at full back and fly half to be utilised. I.e. Farrell might well cover the 'utility back' role that Hogg was given last time, allowing enough fly-half cover for the two specialist 10s to not need to be in every 23.

If that is the case then there will effectively be 3 centre spots rather than 4 up for grabs. That would lengthen the odds for Joseph but he will probably still make it. If nothing else he is the best defensive 13 that Gatland has at his disposal. He also has the pace to chase kicks very well, which will be needed if Gats employs his usual game plan against 11.Savea 14.Milner-Skudder 15.Smith + 23.Dagg.

In practice the initial squad size is fairly irrelevant though given that the squad grows throughout the tour as:

1.Players are called out for injury cover.
2.Then that player stays on tour once the player they are 'covering' is fit again because someone else has a niggle which needs covering
3.Then someone is ruled out the tour for good so that first player who was called up as cover is announced as staying on for the duration of the tour to cover the guy who's had to fly home due to surgery.
4.But now another reserve player is flown out to cover the niggled
5.Then another player is ruled out the tour so the 2nd niggle-reliever is announced as staying for the duration of the tour
6.But now a 3rd niggle-reliever is needed....

There is still a lot of prestige placed on being selected in the initial touring party and rightly so if you ask me - contrary to the above spiel I enjoy the Lions tradition. As injury rates have increased that initial touring squad has had less relevance over the course of the tour though. It is a huge squad that takes part by the end of test 3 these days.

I don't think Italy have the players to make a dent in the score let alone win on previous showings. But it will be interesting to see the Conner OShea effect.

He knows the opposition very well, he has all the analysis on England players, what niggles Marler in the scrum and wins you penalties, how to pressure the halfbacks etc etc.

Every once in a while a team can play a hell of a lot better than their combined ability by insightful coaching.

This is a test of the Italian management far more than the team

I always thought Italys best chance of a win was their first game at home to Wales and to be fair they were ahead of Wales past the 50 min mark but discipline let them down & that turned the game. Certainly Ireland put them to the sword & I would be disappointed if England don't do similar even with a new look set of backs.
However, if you aren't going to experiment (other than through enforced injuries) against Italy you probably won't at all in the 6Ns.

Surprised that JJ has been dropped, can only presume he's carrying a knock, fully expect him back for Scotland.

Rugby Fan wrote:Joseph started the season as one of the few consensus selections for the Lions. You'd think now he needs to be in the last two Six Nations games -and also show well in both - or could miss out.

I wouldn't agree with that.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Surprised that JJ has been dropped, can only presume he's carrying a knock, fully expect him back for Scotland.

Hes gone back to his club so its not a knock, just tactical. Jones obviously wants to try Daly out in different positions, and has 3 other fit wingers who all deserve a place (Nowell Watson and May)...plus Teo is also knocking on the door pretty hard.
Jones has dropped Jospeh for Daly before too.

I guess its only Hartley whos on a pedastal

JJ needs a rest and a wake up call to get back to form.

Yeah, I think this is just a rest up for JJ. Fully expect him to be back involved against Scotland and Italy. He has been solid defensively but not his usual self with the ball in hand. A little break is probably what he needs to re-focus - will be miffed at the chance of missing a few try opportunities I am sure.

Daly will get another chance - a good performance again will prove to Jones that he is an extra bow that has to be included somewhere in the starting 15!
13 is his preferred position I believe so lets see what he can do. (difficult to judge as its possible he will line up with a different 10-12 that JJ has worked with).